On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 4:08 PM, Kim Tucker <kctucker at gmail.com> wrote:
> Is there room to consider formalisation of something as pro-freedom as this?
>>http://wikieducator.org/Libre_Puro_License
It is highly unlikely we'd add a new license to the suite (or re-add an
old one, as you suggested on the wiki). Unless an addition would very
clearly and substantially expand and increase the effectiveness of the
commons (eg lots of people not satisfied by existing options would start
using it -- note the lack of use of plain SA that in part led to not
versioning it past 1.0 is evidence against this, and/or projects that
were using an existing option would move to it and become much more
effective as a result) the downsides of incompatibility and increased
surface area for people to understand say to not expand (indeed, many
people think CC still has too many licenses; note I'm cognizant that
too many and some-nonfree are separate issues).
I'm sympathetic to the ideals expressed in Libre Puro, and encourage
you to think about and clearly articulate how those might be applied to
licenses in the current CC suite, presumably mainly BY-SA. Here are some
specific issues I'd love to have your contributions to:
- BY-SA compatibility with other copyleft licenses.
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0/ShareAlike
- TPM clause. This is in all of the licenses and reflects a subset of
your desire for free formats. It is in particular relevant to BY and
BY-SA and your interests there because its particulars probably impact
the potential for compatibility with other free licenses.
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0/Technical_protection_measures
- Attribution. One doesn't have to require giving credit when releasing
work under a BY* license, but perhaps there's something 4.0 could do
to make that more clear.
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0/Attribution_and_marking
I'll make a couple other comments on
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Talk:4.0/ShareAlike
Mike